Key result
Ambulatory, home, and office blood pressure variability measurements showed only weak correlation (r < 0.3) and slight agreement for extreme variability diagnoses (κ < 0.2).
Why the study?
Do ambulatory, home, and office blood pressure variability measurements correlate with each other in population-based or hypertensive participants?
Cross-Sectional (n=461)
Do ambulatory, home, and office blood pressure variability measurements correlate with each other in population-based or hypertensive participants?
Effect estimate: κ < 0.2
Blood pressure variability measured by ambulatory, home, and office methods correlate only weakly, suggesting they reflect different phenomena rather than a single entity.
Different BP variability methods should not be used interchangeably; leaves open whether they capture distinct risk signals.
OBJECTIVE: Ambulatory, home, and office blood pressure (BP) variability are often treated as a single entity. Our aim was to assess the agreement between these three methods for measuring BP variability. METHODS: Twenty-four-hour ambulatory BP monitoring, 28 home BP measurements, and eight office BP measurements were performed on 461 population-based or hypertensive participants. Five variability indices were calculated for all measurement methods: SD, coefficient of variation, maximum-minimum difference, variability independent of the mean, and average real variability. Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated for indices measured with different methods. The agreement between different measurement methods on the diagnoses of extreme BP variability (participants in the highest decile of variability) was assessed with kappa (κ) coefficients. RESULTS: SBP/DBP variability was greater in daytime (coefficient of variation: 9.8 ± 2.9/11.9 ± 3.6) and night-time ambulatory measurements (coefficient of variation: 8.6 ± 3.4/12.1 ± 4.5) than in home (coefficient of variation: 4.4 ± 1.8/4.7 ± 1.9) and office (coefficient of variation: 4.6 ± 2.4/5.2 ± 2.6) measurements (P < 0.001/0.001 for all). Pearson's correlation coefficients for systolic/diastolic daytime or night-time ambulatory-home, ambulatory-office, and home-office variability indices ranged between 0.07-0.25/0.12-0.23, 0.13-0.26/0.03-0.22 and 0.13-0.24/0.10-0.19, respectively, indicating, at most, a weak positive (r < 0.3) relationship. The agreement between measurement methods on diagnoses of extreme SBP/DBP variability was only slight (κ < 0.2), with the κ coefficients for daytime and night-time ambulatory-home, ambulatory-office, and home-office agreement varying between-0.014-0.20/0.061-0.15, 0.037-0.18/0.082-0.15, and 0.082-0.13/0.045-0.15, respectively. CONCLUSION: Shorter-term and longer-term BP variability assessed by different methods of BP measurement seem to correlate only weakly with each other. Our study suggests that BP variability measured by different methods and timeframes may reflect different phenomena, not a single entity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Juhanoja et al. (2015) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension (n=461). Ambulatory, home, and office blood pressure measurement was evaluated on Agreement between different measurement methods on the diagnoses of extreme BP variability (κ < 0.2). Ambulatory, home, and office blood pressure variability measurements showed only weak correlation (r < 0.3) and slight agreement for extreme variability diagnoses (κ < 0.2).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: